(31-12-2015 06:54 AM)John Silver Wrote: I came across her and research about 6 years ago. I was being heavy into Xtian apologetics then and was Looking for some source quotes by Dr. Bart Erhman when a link carried me down the rabbit hole to a site featuring much of her work.
Her stuff was the very first material I had read that was from the other side of the fence...so to say.
I read and dug deep into her claims for no other reason than to just disprove her claims
I read what the Theological Research Scholars said of her work and what the other critics claimed of her.
But much f their defense was based on Textual Bias and straw-man arguments. Even some of her own colleagues in the field made similar statements about her.

I believe her works was what originally made me start seriously questioning the validity of Christianity and it's claims,
I feel she assumed too much at times and her conclusions on many things were reached by her own anti-christian bias , but never the less even a broke clock is right twice a day and much of her work appeared to ring true.
I can't say I'm a huge fan of her...but she will be remembered as a champion "Myth-Buster'

She was not anti-Christian. I hate that bullshit language. She is the one that pointed out to me the first Buddha myth. She was well aware of the mythology of many religions.

She was anti-Christian in the same way one would be anti-unicornist, or anti-flat earther. Simply calling something a myth does not make one against human rights. Anti Christian is when you go beyond saying "that is not true" or "this is where this story got started" and say "We need to arrest all Christians". She was trying to help humanity wake up out of their delusions.

True...I guess a better term would have been the Church's "mythical" doctrines

As far as My opinion of her being "anti-christian" you say she was trying to wake people from their delusions...do you not feel that christianity as is taught is a delusion?
My statement in no way infers she had a hatred towards christians....just a problem with its claims.....is that not "Anti" ?